Main menu

Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton has continuously advocated for state funding of all day kindergarten and last month, the Minnesota Senate passed a bill which provides for this funding. Minnesota has struggled with achievement gaps between white students and students of color. Minnesota is considered to have one of the worst achievement gaps in the nation. Reducing that achievement gap is one of the goals of increased funding for all day kindergarten.

The bills can be found with these citations:

2013 MN S.F.453 (NS) 2013 MN H.F. 630 (NS)

These documents are also the first two that appear if you search in Minnesota Proposed & Enacted Legislation with the following query:

all-day /5 kindergar! & DA(last 6 months)

To explore the idea of all day kindergarten outside of Minnesota, I ran the following plain language search in secondary sources:

Erin E. Lawson, Fulfilling the Promise of Education to South Carolina’s at-Risk Children: A New Preschool Initiative in South Carolina, 58 S.C. L. Rev. 1025 (2007)

ADDITIONAL RESEARCH REFERENCES

Head Start Research

Earlier this year, President Obama proposed to provide expanded preschool access, the purpose being to reduce the achievement gap between wealthy and poor children. See 2/14/13 Reuters News 20:24:28. But there are concerns as to the effectiveness of preschool programs on the achievement gap. Head Start is a federally subsidized early childhood education program, whose focus is on low-income children from infancy to kindergarten. A recent study, provided by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), showed relatively nominal benefits. See 2/14/13 Reuters News 20:24:28. Supporters claim that the problems exist because Head Start has been inadequately supported. HHS Head Start research can be accessed at the Office of Planning Research and Evaluation.

Governor Messages

Gov. Mark Dayton vetoed education bills in the past because they failed to fund all day kindergarten. To search governor messages, navigate to the state legislative history page, run a search like this one:

By now nearly everyone is familiar with the story of Amanda Knox: In 2009 Knox, a University of Washington student studying abroad in Perugia, Italy was convicted of the November 2007 murder of her roommate, Meredith Kercher. Her Italian boyfriend, Rafaelle Sollecito, suffered the same fate. Knox and Sollecito were sentenced to 26 and 25 years of incarceration, respectively. A third defendant, Rudy Guede, was sentenced to 16 years in prison in a separate trial.

In October 2011, after years of struggle, an Italian jury cleared Knox of murder and other charges. She was sentenced to three years on a defamation charge but received credit for time served. Knox eventually returned to her hometown of Seattle where she resides with her family. She had reportedly resumed her studies at the University of Washington. However, the Italian High Court recently quashed her acquittal and ordered a retrial for Kercher’s murder. The retrial is expected to be heard early 2014 in an appellate court in Florence. If convicted in the retrial, Knox would have the option of appealing to the High Court.

The retrial raises issues regarding extradition and the principle of double jeopardy. If convicted, Knox could be ordered to return to Italy. Should she refuse, the Italian government could seek her extradition. This initiated debate focusing on the extradition treaty (1983 WL 472059) between the United States and Italy, and its reference to double jeopardy. Alan Dershowitz, a Harvard law professor, noted that in the United States, “when you appeal a conviction, you waive your double jeopardy rights.” It remains to be seen whether double jeopardy will be binding on the Knox case. She has vowed to fight the charges, and her attorneys have stated that Knox one day hopes to visit Italy again as a free woman.

It’s been said that freedom isn’t free, and if Amanda Knox retains her freedom after the retrial she will have paid a very heavy emotional, physical and psychological price.

To find extradition treaties, navigate to United States Treaties and Other International Agreements (Home > Administrative Decisions & Guidance > Federal Administrative Decisions & Guidance > Department of State > United States Treaties and Other International Agreements) Enter extradition into the title field:

DOUBLE JEOPARDY

For additional materials on these matters, try the following searches on WestlawNext:

I had a brief discussion today with one of our editors who tells me that Minnesota Laws 2013, Chapter 74, legalizing same sex marriage should be on Westlaw very soon after the governor signs the bill at a 5:00 pm ceremony (Central time). Roughly, that means the law should be available around 6 pm depending on how much ceremony there might be before the governor signs the bill. For obvious reasons, we do not publish session laws to our collections until they are actually signed. Until then, you may read the engrossed bill here: 2013 MN H.F. 1054 (NS). To find the law, once published, navigate to Minnesota Enacted Legislation on WestlawNext or to MN-LEGIS on Westlaw Classic. Try a simple Terms and Connectors search for chapter 74:

ci(74)

BILL SUMMARY:

A bill for an act relating to marriage; providing for civil marriage between two persons; providing for exemptions and protections based on religious association;amending Minnesota Statutes 2012, sections 363A.26; 51 1; 51 3, subdivision 1; 51 8, subdivision 1a; 51 9; 51 7 The bill becomes effective in August of this year.

It was reported yesterday that the U.S. Copyright Royalty Board (CRB) appointed two new “royalty judges”: David Strickler and Jesse Feder. The CRB might not be a well-known entity, but “billions of dollars and the fates of entire industries can ride on the Copyright Royalty Board’s decisions” SoundExchange, Inc. v. Librarian of Congress571 F.3d 1220 (2009).

The role of the CRB is to set royalty rates and terms for statutory licenses. See generally, 37 C.F.R. Chapter III. These include rates webcasters pay for broadcasting music, rates paid for cable and satellite retransmissions, and rates paid by musicians for “covers” of other musicians’ musical works.

The rate making proceedings can be politically charged. For example, check out the Radio and Internet Newsletter accounts of the initial rate-making proceedings for webcasters. To maintain the fairness of these proceedings, Congress amended the process several times. Most recently, the Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panels (CARPs) were replaced by the CRB in 2004 (PL 108-419). Before that, Copyright Royalty Tribunals were replaced by CARPs in 1993 (PL 103-198).

Today’s Copyright Royalty Judges are appointed to six-year terms and are afforded a great deal of power; specifically, they are given “full independence in making determinations concerning adjustments and determinations of copyright royalty rates and terms, the distribution of copyright royalties, ….” 17 U.S.C. § 802(f)(1)(A)(i).

With so much at stake, it’s worthwhile to examine our new CRJ’s legal profiles. A word of caution here: We make no assumptions about how these individuals might rule or what kind of parties they might favor (e.g., big vs. small). Consider Jesse Feder, for example. He served the Business Software Alliance for many years, an organization that has arguably favored a “maximalist” interpretation of copyright law. Note that opposing counsel for recent BSA litigation includes two public interest groups; the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Public Citizen.

But also note that Mr. Feder sits on the Section 108 Study Group whose mission is to reexamine “the exceptions and limitations applicable to libraries and archives under the Copyright Act, specifically in light of the changes wrought by digital media.” One cannot say for certain how this advocacy might affect CRB decision-making so we recommend a search across multiple sources:

MONITOR SUITE

The table above can be found on a company report from Monitor Suite. Simply search for Business Software Alliance. The resulting report allows you to view a litigation profile for the BSA that may be filtered by court, practice area, opposing counsel, etc. For help on this, contact a Reference Attorney at 877 347 6360 (Select 1). You may also run litigation profiles for law firms here.

PROFILER

Both attorneys have numerous documents attributed to them on WestlawNext. To find them, begin by typing profiler into the search box. A pop-up box will recommend a collection of resources. Choose, Profiles of Attorneys & Judges:

Use the template to identify the attorney, then access the References tab to view relevant documents (briefs, cases, dockets, etc.)

NEWS

Simple Terms and Connectors searches seem to work though “David Strickland” is a more common name and requies additional filtering.

adv: feder /5 jesse and copyright

For more on the political back-story, try a plain language search in Blogs on Demand

“copyright royalty judge”

Remember that quotes on WestlawNext do not function as a boolean operator unless you direct it do that. This recommended search clusters relevant terms near one another. To run as an advanced search click the link at the top of the page after running this recommend search:

If you have a cell phone, you’ve likely snapped a nude photo of yourself or your significant other. And you aren’t alone. According to new research, attention craving nude celebrities aren’t the only ones to bare all in front of a mirror.

But what happens when those photos leak? The law makes it very clear that the person who took the photos owns the copyright on them.

So are you out of luck if an ex is threatning to leak said nude photos? The good news is the law also makes it extremely clear that extortion is a crime. This should be reported to your local authorities immediately to be dealt with.

Robert Edwards, a Nobel prize winning pioneer of in vitro fertilization (IVF) technology died last week. His work and achievements contributed to the birth of the first “test tube baby” born in 1978. In vitro fertilization involves fertilizing a human egg outside of the body, in a laboratory. Once the egg is successfully fertilized, it is then transferred to a woman’s uterus, where the hope is that the egg will implant and result in a successful pregnancy.

The development of this procedure and technology was met with a host of ethical and legal concerns. The Catholic Church early on objected to the work, arguing that human life should only commence through intercourse, and not artificially outside the human body. And of course, there are a wide variety of legal implications resulting from the use of this technology. With IVF, traditional notions of parenthood thrown aside – the woman donating eggs may not be the woman carrying the child, and may not even be the woman meant to be the eventual mother of the child. The technology has opened up many options for hopeful parents who, for one reason or another, may not be able to have children “the old fashioned way.” It has opened doors for same-sex couples and unpartnered/unmarried individuals to be able to have biological children, or at least genetically related children. But alternatively, there are ethical and social concerns to be considered as well. The Washington Post provides:

“At the same time, because women are paid to donate their eggs or offer their wombs to become surrogate mothers, worries have arisen that the costly procedure has turned reproduction into a commodity. Because infertility clinics are largely unregulated in the United States, critics say many push ethical boundaries. For example, some enable couples to choose the sex of the child.”

SECONDARY SOURCES

I ran the following search in WestlawNext Secondary Sources:

TI,PR(i.v.f. “in vitro fert!”)

In the first few results I found articles about health plan exclusions regarding IVF:

Genetics and reproductive science, Forensic DNA Evidence: Science and the Law § 13:15

IVF FOLLOWING DIVORCE

My last thought was about IVF and divorce. Some couples might preserve embryos or preembryos resulting from IVF for later use. What happens to those embryos upon the decision of a couple to divorce? I ran the following search in WestlawNext:

i.v.f. “in vitro fert!” /250 divorc! dissol!

A brief glance at some of the initial cases:

J.B. v. M.B., 170 N.J. 9, 783 A.2d 707 (2001), holding: “former wife’s fundamental right not to procreate would be irrevocably extinguished if a surrogate mother bore former wife’s child through use of preembryos, and thus, Court would not force former wife to become a biological parent against her will; and (3) agreement regarding disposition of preembryos entered into at time IVF is begun is enforceable, subject to right of either party to change his or her mind about disposition up to point of use or destruction of any stored preembryos.”

Kass v. Kass, 235 A.D.2d 150, 663 N.Y.S.2d 581 (1997), holding: “(1) informed consent document and uncontested divorce instrument in which parties unequivocally stated their intent as to manner of disposition of cryopreserved fertilized human ova produced during in vitro fertilization procedure governed the disposition of those ova following parties’ divorce, and (2) informed consent document required ova to be used by IVF program for scientific purposes following parties’ divorce.”

J.B. v. M.B., 331 N.J. Super. 223, 751 A.2d 613 (App. Div. 2000) aff’d as modified, 170 N.J. 9, 783 A.2d 707 (2001), holding: “that in vitro fertilization (IVF) contract by which former husband and former wife agreed to relinquish control and ownership of embryos to IVF program if their marriage were dissolved was unenforceable.”

Some secondary source results include:

Right of Husband, Wife, or Other Party to Custody of Frozen Embryo, Pre–embryo, or Pre–zygote in Event of Divorce, Death, or Other Circumstances, 87 A.L.R.5th 253 (Originally published in 2001)